Recommended Posts

The Ontario ombudsman has “serious concerns” about the possible impact of a rule putting a 10-year limit on the terms of administrative tribunal appointments, according to the annual report released by his office last week.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I can't imagine the reason for term limits in general. I mean, can you imagine this applying in any other context, "Look - we know you've spent the last 10 years on this job. And you've accumulated huge amounts of expertise and experience which are relied upon by our clients and partners [read in this case - parties and the judiciary]... but look it's been ten years. Yes, we realize you're still fantastically qualified and highly regarded - but nope, time's up. Goodbye"

It just seems wrongheaded that not only will some of the most experienced people be excluded from jobs - but that this exclusion is a feature and not a bug.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

In BC initial appointments are 3 years and subsequent appointments are 3 to 5 years for most of our commissions and tribunals. Is Ontario similar? If it is I'm really not sure what the purpose of the 10 year cap is. You'd still have independence muddled for the first two appointments as people sought reappointment.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Given that the vote is nearly 50/50 - it's odd nearly all the comments are on the "nay" side. I was wondering if someone who voted yay to term limits could provide their rationale?

As I said, it seems odd to me that you would, prima facie, just exclude anyone from an appointment when they have a load of experience, capability, and expertise in a field. I would definitely support 10 year renewable terms (or heck, I'd actually go with 3-5 year terms that are renewable) - it just seems to me that term limits are generally a bad idea.

Earlier we discussed other public employees and it bears questioning - would those that vote for term limits here also advocate for term limits for police officers? Fire fighters? Foreign affairs officers? CBSA agents? What is the line, and why is the line there?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think the rationale for the ten year appointment is that you get fresh blood flowing in. Depending upon the tribunal, experience is overrated. It also allows the tribunal to clear out deadwood, people that are just phoning it in. I have a chunk of admin experience and a number of appointments are often political deadweights, i.e. they show up but they don't contribute. A lot of this though, as others have pointed out, could be done with term limits that can be renewed but if you have someone who has a lot of political connections or clout, you may never be able to get rid of them or at least rid of them when they really really really need to go.

Recently Browsing
0 members

Recent Posts

The notion that everyone's doing better than you is a ridiculous concern, unless you're a solid C student. It would be strange NOT to call such a concern ridiculous. And if everyone is ACTUALLY doing better than you, the problem is the fact that you're a C student, not the fact that everyone is doing better than you. And, again, that's not a ridiculous concern, it's one that has to be taken seriously.

And worth saying that law students are PRIVILEGED. Having downward spirals over getting some Bs is NOTHING compared to having them over much more serious and damaging issues. One thing that keeps me from spiralling is remembering how lucky I am, how much worse it can be and how much better off I am than so many other people despite whatever problems I’m having.

Ok, but I can fall into downward spirals really easily, too. I don’t have a label for why that is but I know I’ve been that way almost as long as I can remember. But it isn’t anyone else’s fault or anyone else’s responsibility to get me out, though I appreciate the love and support of those who can and do. My meltdowns are my issue that I have learned to deal with as best as I can. I can’t control what other people do and say.

More seriously, people are not entitled to uncritical reinforcement of their self-esteem. No doubt it would make them feel better if they were, but they aren't entitled to that. If I want to wear fishnet stockings, great for me, but I'm not entitled to validation from others.